Sometimes, obama Just Lies

Custom Search

  

  

Of course he's lyin'.

His lips are moving.
 

 

 


help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery . . .

I Lied Lie

Obama to delay repeal of US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise.

Obama provided a policy statement to the (deviously named ) Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. homosexual rights group, pledging to repeal the exclusion and to invite back service members discharged under the law.  He also said that he wants the Pentagon to school military people on how to treat gays.

Open acceptance would change the atmosphere entirely.  If fraternization is a problem now between men and women, imagine the conflicts with openly gay officers who no longer have to be reticent.

He's Too Subtle For That
Charles Krauthammer says Barack Obama doesn't lie.  He's too subtle for that.  He . . . well, you judge.

Here are three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future," he solemnly pledged.  "I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future.  Period."

Wonderful.  Obama seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line.  Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it.  What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false.  But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts.  Every Congress is sovereign.  Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending.  Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language.  "Translation: I promise to fix the problem.  And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone.  I promise he will.  Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem.  You can count on it.  Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants.  Obama said they would not be insured.  Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more important, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing.  If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally.  We have laws against burglary, too.  But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee.  Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits.  Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of ObamaCare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie.  That's not even deception.  That's just an insult to our intelligence.  Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health-care reform?  If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie.  He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another.  This has been the story throughout his whole health-care crusade.  Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care.  That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health-care reform as a cure for the deficit.  When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering ObamaCare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie.  He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, nearly irresistible charm.  Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial.  The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.
Obama's 21 Inaccurate Claims
Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru have been fact-checking Obama and say that it's a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilsonís lead, last fall (2009).  If they yelled out every time Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.

By their count, Obama made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress.  They have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false -- for example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform, but since there is no money in that "trust fund," anyway, the pledge is meaningless.   Even so, they may have missed one or more false statements by Obama.  Their failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.

Here's the list of Obama's 21 "inaccurate claims."
A New World's Record
  

7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes  (01:47)

Pamela Geller thinks this is a new world's record for a dirty, lying politician.  Wow!  Not one element of truth in there.  Not one.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.
Just A Liar And Not A Leader
Rob Binsrick says that during one of Barack Obamaís speech to a joint session of Congress last year, he was met at one point with an emphatic outburst of "You lie!" by Congressman Joe Wilson.  At the time Wilsonís outburst was deemed to be disrespectful, demeaning, unprofessional and/or even just stupid.  In retrospect though, Wilson should be commended for pointing out what is the absolute truth about Obama, which is that he is indeed a liar.

When Bill Clinton was serving as president, it became very evident that he was a pathological liar.  However, Clintonís lies were more of a personal nature which for the most part only affected himself.  On the other hand, Obamaís lies will affect hundreds of millions of Americans for generations to come.

As a prime example of Obamaís pathological lying, there is perhaps none more glaring than his reversal about holding healthcare hearings in the public eye, which he often noted would be broadcasted on C-SPAN.  He made these vows eight times during the presidential campaign (video at link).

Now though, Congressional leaders have decided that they are not even going to follow the normal protocol of reconciling the House and Senate versions of their respective healthcare bills through the use of bi-partisan conference committees.  Instead, they are going to hold closed-door meetings which will involve only Democrat leaders from both houses of Congress and representatives from the Obama administration.  Republicans will essentially be completely shut out of the process.

Obama, for his part, rather than asking the Congressional leaders to help him keep his campaign promises is instead fully supporting their plans and even asking them to speed up the process as much as possible.  The main reason for the urgency is so Obama can speak about the legislation during his state of the union address in February.

Yes, that is correct, the reason for the urgency is not because the bill is so good for and/or so needed by the American people that it needs to be passed as quickly as possible.  Instead, the reason for the urgency by the Democrats is simply so Obama has a talking point in his speech.

Obama has talked about how proud he is of the Democrats in Congress for passing their healthcare bills and talked about how it was a victory for all Americans.  Then why are they so afraid of letting the American people see the process?  If this legislation is supposedly so good, then the Democrats should be lauding it daily in the public eye and it should be the cornerstone of their election campaigns in 2010.  Instead though, they are doing all that they can to hide the bill and to hide their actions from the public eye

The reasons for that are obvious.  First and most importantly, it is not a good bill.  The majority of the American people do not support it.  It will inevitably add to the deficit regardless of how many accounting gimmicks the Democrats use to hide that fact.  And the quality of health care will go down if this bill passes.

Second, the Democrats do not want the American to see for themselves the back-room deals and sweetheart packages that they have to include in the bill to get their own party members to vote for it.  And once again, if the bill is supposedly so good then why would those bribes and incentives be needed anyway?

Third, the Democrats and Obama do not want the American people to see just how partisan they have become by locking out the Republicans and even the more moderate Democrats from the process.  Obama once stated that if Iran would offer an open hand to him then he would meet with them.  However, he will not even do that with fellow Americans who disagree with him.  That is not leadership but is instead a clear sign of cowardice.  It is tantamount to the playground crybaby who takes his ball and goes home whenever he does not get his way.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in discussing this healthcare reform process, actually stated that "There has never been a more open process" in passing the legislation.  Even if that comment had been intended as a joke it would have still raised eyebrows.  The fact that she was actually being serious when she said it should concern every American because it shows how Pelosi and her cohorts define openness.

The real problem here though is still Obama.  He could have acted like a president at some point and made the process more open and more bi-partisan.  However, he instead turned it over to the highly partisan Democrats in Congress and has now joined in with them in their orgy of spending and government intervention.  When the American people heard Obamaís bold statements on the campaign they voted for him to be a new bold leader.  But instead of a leader all they got is a bold-faced liar.
The Lies Of Obama
John Ellis says, when politicians are caught out in lies, their supporters often resort to the old clichť: all politicians lie.  But that is itself a lie: most donít.  Even among those who do, there are enormous differences in the importance and frequency of the lies.  And it is surely now clear that this nation has a far from routine problem in the scale and regularity of Obamaís lying.

When politicians lie they are usually trying to avoid political damage, or to make themselves look good.  Bill Clinton lied (and got himself impeached) to save himself from embarrassment about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  Hillary Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia to enhance her non-existent foreign affairs profile.  Richard Nixon was forced from office because he lied to cover up his involvement in a political dirty trick.  John Kerry lied about his Vietnam combat experience to blunt his anti-military reputation.  But Barack Obamaís lies are far more corrosive and destructive, because they go the heart of legislation and governance, and so seriously undermine trust in government.  His lies generally take a specific form: they attempt to persuade people to vote for him or his policies by categorically assuring them that they need not have the anxieties that they have been expressing.  The lies say, essentially: trust me, support what I want, and I promise that what you fear will never happen.  But in every case it soon becomes clear either that he knew perfectly well that what the public feared would in fact happen, or that he was giving a firm assurance that he was in no position to give, or that he had no intention of following through on his promise.

The accumulated weight of Obamaís deceit is overwhelming.  Here is Ellis' evidence . . .

Ellis concludes, Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech.  But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes.  As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence.  Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics.  When will the press and the Congress hold him accountable?
Obama Says Anything -- And Does So, Again and Again
Hugh Hewitt says said the caller from Atlanta said, "I have seen more of President Obama than I have of my wife, and I'm a newlywed."

Funny.  And true.  And sad.  Stung by his defeat in Massachusetts after a personal appearance on behalf of Martha Coakley and a long speech telling Massachusetts voters why they had to send her to Washington, Obama seems intent on punishing the entire nation with speech after speech after speech.

We are to be cajoled into submission.

It isnít working.  "He talks and talks," Mark Steyn said on my show Thursday.  "And the more his rhetoric is detached from reality, the more heís actually devaluing his only currency which is words."

Obamaís meeting with Senate Democrats on Wednesday is the perfect example of the political cul-de-sac he finds himself in.  He is trying to use words to change the political weather, but the more he speaks, the more ridiculous his arguments appear.

He told the senators that "they needed to get out there, get out of Washington, out of the echo chamber."  This is laughable when this past August is recalled.  Democrats went home to their states and districts and found town halls jammed with ObamaCare opponents.  Then Obama urged them to disregard the voters.  They did so, and their political peril is palpable.  Now he is telling them to hold more town halls.

Thatís not amazing as Obamaís rewrite of budget history, which somehow ignores that the budget deficit was $161 billion in 2007 and now stands at $1.6 trillion, a staggering number that is spooking markets.  "Weíve also got to get back to fiscal responsibility," he told the senators, and the listeners outside the room howled.  Not only is Obama not persuading the public of his ideas or his leadership skills, he is shrinking before their very eyes.  It is a poor impersonation of Jon Lovitz, with Obama thinking, "thatís the ticket!" with every paragraph he utters.

Obama does seem to realize that blaming President Bush, which was never very presidential to begin with, has become almost a sign of adolescence.  He is thus pivoting from blaming his predecessor to blaming the Congressional GOP.  Obama told the senators that they had had to face more filibusters in a single year than all of the filibusters of the 1950s and 1960s combined, and blamed the Republicans for obstructionism.  Of course this is nonsense.  Not a single successful partisan filibuster was mounted in 2009, which is not surprising because after Arlen Specterís switch, the GOP totaled 40 votes.  A handful of Obama nominees languished because significant numbers of Democrats joined Republicans in opposing them, but the idea that obstructionism prevailed throughout 2009 is risible, and Obama who claims 60 votes is just not enough is risible as well.

The entire meeting was comedy though it was intended as drama, and Obama left thinking heíd had another great day, just as he thinks he won his debate with Republicans the Friday before.

While Obama pats himself on the back, however, the unemployment numbers climbed, the budget deficit shocked, the markets tanked and Iran threatened.  Obama is in a bubble of words and surrounded by "advisors" who are clearly overmatched by the world.  Even Republicans have to hope a shuffle is ahead for the senior staff, and that some experienced leadership is brought to 1600.  The country is in a difficult place, and unlike a debate tournament, losing a few rounds has enormous consequences.

We have to hope that Obama recognizes that his speech offensive has become offensive, and that what really needs to be done is some work.  Beginning with a red pen and his absurd budget.  When he asks his party to do anything remotely difficult --and that does not include demanding ruinous taxes on the small businesses they so obviously disdain and in some cases despise-- people may begin to listen again.

Or perhaps not.  Obama may already be in reruns in most voters minds, which makes for a long three years ahead.
The Fantasy Lie
Would somebody please inform this egomaniac that there ain't no such thing as the "Office of the President Elect."

   

   
Especially when he is not yet the president elect.  That won't happen until after the Electoral College convenes on December 15th and the Electors vote.  The results are then presented to a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2009.  Objections may be presented and heard.  Then  Congress certifies the votes.  Only then would Obama be the "president elect. 

Since Obama resigned his seat in the US Senate, he is, at this time, an unemployed  private citizen, with no power and no authority -- just arrogance. 
  

And, there's that damned seal again.  I fully expect Obama to have a military uniform (with 6 stars, of course) that he can wear when he's acting in the role of Commander-in-Chief (what an absolutely repulsive thought).

      

Obama Just Making It Up
Thomas Lifson says the descent of Barack Obama's image from messiah to con man is accelerating, to the point where even the New York Times is onto the game.  Peter Baker, whose Sunday Times interview with Obama has already made headlines (Golly gee, who knew that there was no such thing as a shovel ready job?) calls out a presidential fabrication:
   

In speech after speech lately, President Obama has vowed to oppose a Republican proposal "to cut education by 20 percent," a reduction that would "eliminate 200,000 children from Head Start programs" and "reduce financial aid for eight million college students."  Except that strictly speaking, the Republicans have made no such proposal....

    
Related:  "I actually believe my own bullshit."  Barack Obama (quoted) in Renegade
Obama And Cameras
Jonathan Last is reporting that among the many strange moments in Barack Obama's post-election press conference last week was this self-pitying complaint from the leader of the free world:
    

"Those letters that I read every night, some of them just break my heart. Some of them provide me encouragement and inspiration. But nobody is filming me reading those letters. And so itís hard, I think, for people to get a sense of, well, how is he taking in all this information?"

    
One of the nice things about being president, however, is that if you want to have someone filming your private, introspective moments, well, you can hook that up.  Barely 48 hours after Obama complained about people not being able to see him reading letters -- lo and behold! -- the White House's blog posted a moving (and beautifully scored and produced) six minute video about how Obama reads ten letters every day.  The cameras film him not just reading the letters, but reading some of them aloud.

If the mid-term election was really just about the White House failing to communicate effectively, problem solved!

However, that video was actually first posted in August of 2009, so there were actually cameras filming him all along.

Here is the video of the lying liar lying.
More Obama Myths Busted
Barack Obama made his cameo on Discovery Channelís Mythbusters Wednesday to try and test some scientific legends.  But itís Reason.tv who is busting Obamaís own popular myths:
    
    
Too Good To Believe
In one of the most memorable moments from the Tragedy in Tucson memorial last night, and captured in video, Obama told the pep rally audience that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time on Wednesday night.

It was very emotional moment.  But, it was also a lie.

The Sonoran Chronicle posted a report on January 9, 2011, by cachocurt, entitled, "Giffords survives the night; can open eyes."

Dr. Rhee, Chief Trauma Surgeon at the University Medical Center, said at a press conference on Sunday, that in terms of being shot in the head, this is "about as good as itís going to get."

Giffords can open her eyes, but because she is on a ventilator she canít speak, said Rhee.
Obama The Deceiver
Jeffrey Kuhner says Obama is trying to reposition himself as a moderate.  His State of the Union address was aimed at convincing the public that he is serious about fiscal responsibility and reining in out-of-control budget deficits.  His public relations offensive boils down to one seminal theme: Socialism is out; centrism is in.

Hence, Obama called for a freeze on discretionary spending affecting numerous domestic agencies.  He wants to work with Republicans to "fix" his health care overhaul -- to reform it, not repeal it.  He has a newfound opposition to earmarks.  He is a champion of bipartisan consensus building.

Donít buy it.  The address was an obvious attempt to con the electorate into forgetting not only the past two years, but ObamaĎs real agenda: the transformation of America into a social democratic state.  His "spending freeze" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors -- a clumsy attempt to look serious about the looming debt crisis.  His "freeze" would not only lock in the record-high levels of spending implemented by the administration, it would fail to make any dent in runaway entitlements and other costly programs -- which are the real threats to our national solvency.

Obama is a fantasist.  His demands for a spending freeze are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  The American economy is about to crash upon the rocks of fiscal reality.  The day after his address, the Congressional Budget Office released the estimate for this yearís budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.  This is the largest deficit in U.S. history, and it comes on top of ObamaĎs previous trillion-dollar blowouts.  He is burying America under a mountain of red ink.  He is not only fiscally reckless, but morally bankrupt.  His spend-and-borrow policies are mortgaging future generations -- saddling them with a massive debt that will be almost impossible to repay.

Under ObamaĎs watch, America is being reduced to a second-class nation.  Our trade deficits are huge.  The dollar is plummeting.  Investment capital and businesses are fleeing.  The economy remains stagnant.  Unemployment is high.  Power and wealth are slowly shifting toward the East -- especially China.

It is no accident that Obama deliberately singled out Beijing for praise in his address, welcoming the rise of the communist giant.  As America amasses more debt, the Chinese are buying up our Treasury bonds.  China is financing our orgy of deficit spending.  The result: Washington is becoming an economic vassal of Beijing.  Obama -- slowly but surely -- is undermining U.S. national sovereignty, making America increasingly dependent upon Chinese largesse.  This is the ultimate price for becoming the worldís largest debtor nation.  We no longer control our own destiny.  Uncle Sam now bows to the Red Dragon.

None of this matters to Obama.  At his core, he is a radical leftist who seeks to dismantle capitalism and the achievements of the Reagan revolution -- low taxes, deregulation and the reassertion of American exceptionalism.

Continue reading here . . .

Deception is a tool to Socialists.  Obama has no problem, whatsoever, in blatantly lying to the American people if it achieves his socialist agenda.  He's been lying to us since the day he announced.

Obama is an evil man, surrounded by evil men.
Obama "Simply Misunderstands"
Susan Jones is reporting that Republican Gov. Scott Walker released a statement after Obama referred to the union protests in Wisconsin while addressing a governors' meeting in Washington, saying:
    

"I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon.  We need to attract the best and the brightest to public service. These times demand it."

    
In response, Gov. Walker said:
   

I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay.  And I'm sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin.  At least I would hope he knows these facts.

Furthermore, Iím sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.

Iím sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isnít acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.

    
No, governor.  Obama always says one thing and does another.  He's a liar.  As politicians go, Obama may be the greatest liar  ever -- and he's not very good at it.

The thing is, the ObamaMedia covers for his lies.  They call them misstatements, and twist and turn themselves into logic pretzels to cover for his mendacity.

Check this out!  If one Googles -- obama misspoke -- they will receive 65,000 results.  Page, after page, after page, after page, of lies, and all reported in the ObamaMedia as "misstatements."

Obama can saying anything in the firm knowledge that no matter how outrageous the lie is, the ObamaMedia will cover for him.
Revising History
David Limbaugh asks, can you imagine how insufferable Obama would be about his record in office if he actually had abundant positive accomplishments?  Have we ever seen a starker contrast between a politician's record and his self-assessment of it?  It's not as though he just avoids or downplays his failures.  It's more like he showcases them, but only after completely revising history to put his actions in a favorable light.

I have this recurring dream where I'm watching Obama give a speech and he makes a claim about his record wholly at odds with what we have witnessed and I have to question my memory.  Did he just say what I think he said, or did I miss a word or phrase that would have changed the meaning to something far less inaccurate -- and outrageously absurd?  The trouble is, these are not dreams.

The most recent example was his speech on immigration.  Perhaps he figured he'd received enough of a "bounce" from the bin Laden strike to ratchet up his militant rhetoric against border enforcement advocates.  Last year, through the Arizona law, they were subjecting to possible arrest "legals" who were just out with their families for ice cream.  Now they want to protect the border with a moat full of alligators, but the people who are truly in jeopardy, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry pointed out, are those on the border who have to deal with the reality of deadly Mexican drug cartels.

Here's where my "dream" comes in.  While ridiculing the patriots who are simply trying to enforce the law, he claims that he is already doing so with vigor.  He says that violence in El Paso is decreasing and that the border towns are among the safest in America, implying that his policies are directly responsible for the decline, but how can Obama make a causal connection between his border policies and so-called improved security?  Remember, this is the same guy who told Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl that he would not assist with border security because it would remove any incentive for the GOP to work with him on "comprehensive immigration reform."

Any decline in apprehensions, says Perry, is due to the depressed state of the economy and fewer people trying to cross over in pursuit of jobs.  "The drug cartels haven't slowed down a bit.  They're still continuing to use our southern border as a base of operation.  We're seeing more and more of our citizens, for instance in south Texas in the last 30 days ... our ranchers ... being threatened, and I'm not talking about threatened verbally, I'm talking shot at.  You're going to see United States citizens killed if this administration does not take border security seriously.  They don't."

Another of my "dreams" occurred when Obama asserted a surreal defense of his offshore drilling policy, claiming that criticisms of his drilling moratorium and "permitorium" were unwarranted because oil production had reached new highs.

Well, just as relaxing border enforcement could not possibly increase border safety, imposing a virtual freeze on much offshore drilling could not possibly increase the volume of drilling.  As Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute observes, the administration is unfairly taking credit for long-term decisions that were made long before Obama took office.  "It's completely disingenuous," said Milito, "to say that offshore production has increased due to anything this administration has done."

Do you not see a pattern here?  It's as if Obama has relied on rhetoric his entire life and has come to believe that it will prevail over any facts to the contrary.  Policy failures can be mystically converted to successes with a speech laced with lofty deceit or, if too egregious to deny, can simply be blamed on Bush.  Serendipitous successes can be credited to policies that were designed to accomplish just the opposite.

So it is that he would have us believe he's made the border safer because he refuses to make it safer; he has increased oil production while thwarting it; he revels in ordering the death of bin Laden, which was made possible by counterterrorism policies he strenuously opposed and intelligence gathered from procedures he's now actively seeking to criminalize; he brags about what he's accomplished in Iraq when he was at the forefront in opposing policies that led to the successes he is co-opting; he states that unlike Bush, he is engaging in multilateralism in Libya, though his international coalition is much smaller than Bush's for Iraq; and he bases his whole case for ObamaCare on increasing access to health care, when the inevitable destination of his plan is to grossly decrease access through rationing.

Just think about what Obama's policy agenda would look like in a second term when he wouldn't have to play these games with an eye to re-election.
Israel's 1967 borders
The Blaze is reporting that after the press filmed a tense joint-statement session in the Oval Office between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did his best to pick up the pieces at the daily press briefing.  And the overarching message to reporters was this: the controversial comments about Israel returning to its 1967 borders only meant that those borders should be used as a starting point in negotiations (video).

Former Ambassador to Israel Ned Walker agreed.  He trumpeted that position on Fox in this video.

But is that really what Obama said?  For the record, here are his remarks from the actual speech:
    

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel.  The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.  The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. [Emphasis added]

    
Obama got smacked down by Bibi in front of the whole world, and no amount of spin will ever change that.
A More Blatant Disregard For The Truth
Dennis Clayson says the media helped Obama build his house of lies.

Almost all modern governments have a difficult time with the truth.  Typically, however, it was assumed democracies would be a bit more truthful than dictatorships.  Believing health and literacy data from communist-controlled regimes was reserved for the foolish and the naive, but an active and open press was supposed to put some constraints on the leaders of freer societies.  In the United States we have growing evidence this assumption is beginning to unravel.

In my lifetime, I have never seen a presidency with a more blatant disregard for the truth than the Obama administration.

Stop the finger pointing and the childish "Nah, nah, you did it first" rhetoric.  Note that I said "blatant."  Nixon had his problems with the truth, but the press was after him in a fevered pitch that still puts the old-timers in the press room into a state of hallowed nostalgia.  To a large extent, the press has now become the PR office of the modern presidency, especially this one.

Barack Obama could stand in a driving rainstorm and proclaim it a sunny day and the press would not even bat an eye.  If someone at Fox News or an independent blogger said it was actually raining, they would be attacked as liars and maybe even as dangerous people whose access to the public should be restricted.

The disregard for the truth is so blatant and automatic that members of the Obama administration don't even bother to learn the story line before lying.  The capture and death of Osama bin Laden was a good example.  Numerous versions of what happened were given by people who were all supposedly in the same room and who are thought of as "in the know" in the Obama circle of associates.  The Associated Press even became a little uneasy with the fakery of photographing Barack Obama announcing the death of bin Laden at one location while the speech was actually given in another.  You could say that this is just good PR, but this administration engages in this sort of thing so automatically that even the PR hacks in the press are becoming uneasy.

This disregard for the truth is also found in two other areas that should raise concerns.  The administration not only lies about itself, its sycophantic press will lie about anyone or anything else that happens to cast even the slightest negative shadow on the administration.  The media asked George W. Bush what he thought of bin Laden's death.  Asked about the accuracy of the subsequent report, a spokesman for the former president replied, "Most of the quotes are not accurate."

The second problem is in the disconnect between discourse and actual behavior.  For example, at the same time the White House extols the benefits of ObamaCare -- even proclaiming that implementation will save money -- his administration is approving waivers to make certain organizations immune to provisions of the act.  In the last month, over 200 waivers were issued, bringing the total to 1,372 for what the press referred to as the "Democrats' health care reform law."  In the waiver story, the word "Obama" magically disappeared close to the name of the bill.

It is no longer possible for a serious person to believe "official" announcements of this government.  The unemployment numbers are fiction.  Inflation data have little relationship to reality.  Government assets are purposely misreported.  The projected costs of new laws are fairy tales.  These are matters of accounting, so one can only imagine what the honesty quotient is of more politically related issues.

This is all made possible by a media that has turned what its heroes did to Nixon into a myth.  Instead of a search for the truth, they now see the overthrow of a government and the false glory of imagining themselves as kingmakers.  This conceit has become so strong they ironically have been turned into PR hacks for the actual kings and queens of our society.
Today's ObamaLie
The Beaufort Observer asks if Obama is "honesty challenged?"

For some time now we have been tracking the "inaccurate" statements made by Barack Obama.  Seldom does a week go by that we do not document another inaccurate statement.  What amazes us nearly as much as a guy who would lie constantly without ever going back and correcting his "misstatements" is a news media that does not call him out on such dishonesty.  But that appears to be changing.

Just recently, Nancy Morgan, writing in the American Thinker reviewed the most recent of the lies Obama has engaged in.  She writes:
    

Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter.  Especially when that someone is the President of the United States.  Charges of that nature should be leveled based only on absolute proof of a deliberate statement, intentionally made, whose sole purpose is to deceive.  Based on this criterion, President Obama is a liar.  Demonstrably so.  And a disturbing pattern is emerging that allows for the possibility that our president is a serial liar.  Consider:

In just the last month, Obama has made several statements that are just not so.  Statements made to the American public that were in direct conflict with known facts.

In April, Obama flatly stated that implementing ObamaCare will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.  A day later, the Congressional Budget Office reported that statement was 'incorrect,' pegging the "deficit savings" at $210 billion over 10 years.

In the same April 15 speech, Obama stated that the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years.  A simple fact-check proves him wrong.  Obama did not correct his false statement and the media didn't either.

In January of 2009, Obama stated that it was no longer necessary to kill Osama bin Laden to win the war against al-Qaeda.  On May 1, 2011, after the successful raid by Navy Seals that killed bin Laden, Obama told the nation that he made the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden a "top priority," and had instructed CIA Chief Leon Panetta to make this job number one. Which statement is correct?

    
And these illustrations do not include those involving just lack of transparency, such as about his background on any number of issues other than his birth certificate...such as his college records, why he lost his law license or his "flip-flops" such as how he financed his campaign in 2008 (refusing to be constrained by the Federal election standards after first promising to participate), or such understandable things as backtracking on Gitmo. And on and on the list goes.

Rest assured that we will continue to document the dishonesty coming from Obama and his administration.
Comments . . .
***  
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010 - 2011
All right reserved